check_headers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Audit' and 'checks' imply a non-mutating inspection of response headers, which is useful, but it does not disclose limitations or side effects such as network behavior, blocking, or rate limits. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and a clear list of header categories after an em dash. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only audit tool with fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool does and the scope of the check. It doesn't discuss alternatives explicitly, but that gap is minor given the low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% ('URL to check'), so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds no new meaning about the URL beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('checks') and identifies a distinct resource: security headers, naming concrete checks such as HSTS, CSP, CORS, X-Frame-Options, and cookie flags. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like scan_url or assess_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Quick security headers audit' implies this is the tool to call when a header-specific check is needed, but it never explicitly states when not to use it or points to an alternative sibling. Selection guidance is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.